BY JOHN K. WILSON
When the Annals of Internal Medicine published an article last fall declaring no serious evidence linked eating red meat to health problems, it sparked enormous controversy and criticism from many experts in the field. Now, the critics are being attacked.
In an open letter headlined, “Texas A&M Chancellor Calls on Harvard to Investigate Its Faculty Members,” Chancellor John Sharp denounced Harvard professors involved with the True Health Initiative which had attacked the study and urged that its pro-meat guidelines be retracted.
Sharp claimed that their actions and views are “unethical, distort the results of important scientific research, and, in our opinion, are false and harmful to Texas A&M University and its faculty. These are serious matters that undermine the values espoused by your institution and must be corrected immediately.” According to Sharp, “Such resolution should include a serious assessment by Harvard of its affiliation with THI and a comprehensive ethical review into any Harvard faculty involved with THI.”
Asking for Harvard to conduct ethical reviews of any faculty involved with an organization is pure guilt by association. It also implies that Texas A&M faculty and students would be prohibited from involvement with the True Health Initiative, and thereby poses a threat to the academic freedom of faculty there.
Is what the True Health Initiative did about the press embargo a violation of professional ethics? No. Not even close. THI denies violating the embargo. Press embargoes are requests to the media not to release stories in advance. It is not a violation of a press embargo to contact experts about a paper, or to contact the editor if you think the forthcoming publication is false or misleading. It is also not a violation of professional ethics for an academic to disobey a press embargo. The only “punishment” for violating a press embargo is being taken off the list for future advance press releases.
An argument about scientific data should take place within the scientific community and in the public arena. People can debate the proper approaches, but as Hank Reichman points out, when the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine calls upon government agencies or prosecutors to intervene, it is trying to silence scientific debate.
The government and university administrators should have no role in punishing scientists who disagree with them. I don’t have a side in the meat fight. But Sharp’s letter is a disturbing attack on academic freedom. Demanding that Harvard investigate (and presumably punish) faculty for their views and associations is absolutely unacceptable. Calling for an “ethical review into any Harvard faculty involved” with THI is pure guilt by association. Asking faculty “are you now or have you ever been” a member of an anti-meat group, and demanding punishment if they are, is always wrong. This is Meat McCarthyism.
